nullification Archives - Tree of Liberty Society

TRANSCRIPT

There’s a couple of different things—mindsets—that you hear a lot, excusing either themselves or others for doing something that is really not appropriate, not good. It’s unprincipled. And, you know, you’ll see officer excuses, either for themselves or for others, about officers—“they’re just following orders.”

And this was actually, you know, it’s—I don’t know, ironic might be the wrong word—but I find it interesting when I hear people use this for excusing police and other government officials for doing something wrong. The excuse that they were given was that they were just following orders, when that was the exact excuse that was given during the Nuremberg trials for the Nazi soldiers. And it was said that that’s not an acceptable excuse to do something wrong.

And so that’s something that I still hear on a regular basis for why people do things that are wrong. We heard this at our meeting that we reported on a few weeks ago, where the cop was talking about himself—or he was talking about a different officer—where they had to take the vaccine or they had to enforce something they knew was wrong to protect their job, so that they could provide for their family.

Or the other ones that I’ve heard before are that, you know, “If I didn’t do that thing, it didn’t matter because someone else would do it anyway.” So why—you know—it wouldn’t make a difference anyway. “Why put my neck out there? Why bother if it’s not going to make a difference anyways?”

And so this is kind of the mindset that I find to be very cowardly and helps to perpetuate the situation that we’re in. And we need to—if there’s any part of us that has this mindset—you know, I’m hoping that, you know, of course, if we’re here, that the majority of our mindset is outside of this. But if there’s any of that, you know, hidden away somewhere, I’m hoping to purge any of that that we might have left in our minds, because it’s wrong. And it helps to make things worse. And we need to really show ourselves as being principled and standing for what’s right no matter what.

Founding fathers—

Can I make one brief comment there?

Yeah, go ahead.

I was just going to say, it’s so interesting because I work with other professionals, right? So if you have, say, an electrician come to your home—like, I am not your boss. You are at my home. You will wire it this way, right? And what does the electrician say? “You’re an idiot. I can’t do it that way. And I won’t do it that way. Goodbye.” No.

And literally any other profession—you know, whether it’s a mechanic, electrician, you name it—other than government-run institutions, who will just flat deny anything—someone else’s orders on top of their own. And it doesn’t matter. Right?

People will come that I’ve worked with, and you’ll get a bid for one thing. The person will show up to actually do it. They’ll look at it and say, “Well, I don’t care what my supervisor said or what the guy giving you the bid said. That does not work.”

And so it’s strange to me that there is that, you know, that disconnect. That with government, that is absolutely 100% good. And in fact, it’s a badge of honor to just go along with what someone else is telling you to do. But, you know, then with every other profession we interact with, they’d never let that happen.

Yeah.

Even at Chick-fil-A—you go there, you forget your wallet—what do the people say? “Oh hey, just pay us next time.” It’s just—every other profession other than government allows individuals to use their moral free agency and their professional training to make decisions.

So anyway, I just thought that was interesting as I’ve compared and contrasted this. And I don’t know what the cognitive dissonance or the disconnect is in all of us, you know—and especially those officers perpetrating this, you know—and, you know, like Dan McKay when he, you know, had the guy gagged and thrown out of the Utah Capitol for wearing a “We the People” shirt. “Oh, this is just going along with what the other guys told me to do.”

But I think you make a good point too, Nate, that it’s only acceptable in certain criteria. We only let certain professions get away with that. You mentioned electricians, right? I mean, there’s just different things out there that—they’re just going to not do it because it’s wrong. And the fact that other people—

All of a sudden you’re in government, and you don’t have to follow your conscience anymore. It’s bizarre.

I appreciate you chiming in. The Founding Fathers at the end of the Declaration of Independence—they stated that:

“We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

So they were putting their sacred honor—their reputations—on the line. Their fortunes—they were willing to put their resources on the line to get the job done. They were willing to put their lives on the line.

So was this just a platitude? Was this just a, you know, a figure of speech? Or did they actually implement this? Did they show in their daily lives after they signed the Declaration of Independence that that’s what they would actually do?

And I say that yes—they actually proved that they did pledge their lives—their actual lives, their actual fortunes, and their actual honor to get the job done.

So I just want to kind of go over some of the examples of that. There were five of the signers that were captured by the British during the war, and they were brutally tortured. So they were willing to be tortured for the cause.

Nine of them fought in the war, and they died from their wounds or from hardships because of it.

Four of them had their sons captured or even killed. So not only—you know, sometimes we’re like, “Yeah, okay, I’m willing to sacrifice for myself, but you involve my kids in this thing…” That’s a whole other story. You know, I’m not—you know…

These guys were willing to put their own children on the line for the cause. Not in a cowardly way, where they’re like pushing their kids in the forefront so they didn’t have to suffer—but no, there was this actual sacrifice. And I think that that’s—you know, sometimes children and families are used as a leverage against people to do the wrong things, to violate their conscience. But these men said, “No, I’m willing to do that.”

Yeah.

Twelve or more had their homes destroyed due to their efforts—their farms, their lands—destroyed because of their involvement in the Declaration of Independence.

All of them gave up hundreds of thousands of what would be dollars today—it wasn’t the money they used back then—but what would be hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cause. They were giving up their riches to be able to support what was needed, to provide the support that was needed in the field to get the job done.

And they had their businesses destroyed. There were shipping companies—they were owners of shipping companies—that had their ships confiscated and destroyed and their businesses.

They didn’t say, “Oh, you know, if I stand up for this, it might hurt my business.” They were willing to sacrifice their very livelihood. So not just giving up their money—meaning “Here is some money, get this done”—but they sacrificed their ability to provide for their families to make sure that the cause was supported.

And so we can see that these are people that put their money where their mouth is, so to say. That there was nothing—there was no part of their life—that they weren’t willing to put on the line. There was no excuse of, “Oh, I’ve got to support my family,” or “I don’t want to lose my job,” or “I don’t…” You know—whatever it was. “Oh, yes, I’m willing to sacrifice my life, but not my kids.” There was no part of their life that they weren’t willing to put on the line to consecrate to the cause of liberty.

Right.

And this isn’t just the Founding Fathers. But we go throughout time—those that understand these principles. These are the principles I’m going to go over and show—how what we’re talking about right here and what we do at Tree of Liberty is the cause of Christ.

And so I want to show what the early Christian leaders—what did they do? What did they sacrifice for the cause?

You had Zacharias, who was the father of John the Baptist. He was killed in the temple for not disclosing his son’s hiding place. John the Baptist—he was in hiding, and they wanted to know where he was, and Zacharias didn’t tell them. And so they killed him for it.

You had the apostle Paul—he was beheaded. Peter was hung upside down. Andrew himself was crucified. Thomas was killed by the spears of four Roman soldiers. Philip was tortured to death. James was stoned and clubbed to death.

And then later on—even so, it wasn’t just the Christians right around the time of Christ—but even a couple of hundred years after the time of Christ, you had St. Lawrence, who was grilled to death, because Christianity was deemed by the Roman government “the hatred of the human race.” So it wasn’t just like, “Oh, it was your religion.” It was—Christianity was deemed just a threat to humanity in general.

And so they grilled him—they barbecued him to death—because of that. And he was willing to put his life and be tortured in that way to support the cause of Christ.

The post Would You Risk Everything For Liberty? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Constitutional Crisis: Is The Constitution Still In Effect?

Ben McClintock — Fri, 06 Jun 2025 14:02:57 +0000

In discussions about the U.S. Constitution, it’s crucial to return to foundational principles, including natural law and the historical context of its creation. The Constitution did not spontaneously appear as a supreme entity creating subordinate bodies; rather, it was formed by thirteen independent nations entering into a contractual union. This perspective, championed by many of the Founding Fathers, underscores the idea that the Constitution is a compact between sovereign states.

The Constitution as a Compact Among Sovereign States

Thomas Jefferson, a key figure in the early American republic, articulated this view in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798. In response to federal legislation that Kentucky deemed unconstitutional, Jefferson asserted that “the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government, but by a compact under the style and title of a constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes” [1]. This statement emphasizes that the states, as sovereign entities, delegated specific, limited powers to the federal government through a contractual agreement.

The nature of this compact is further illuminated by Article VII of the Constitution itself, which states: “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same” [2]. This article highlights that the Constitution was established between the ratifying states, not imposed upon them by a pre-existing, all-powerful federal authority. It signifies a voluntary agreement among independent parties.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces this concept of limited government and reserved powers: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” [3]. This amendment explicitly states that any powers not expressly granted to the federal government, or forbidden to the states, remain with the states or the people. This clearly delineates the boundaries of federal authority as defined by the original compact.

Jefferson, in the Kentucky Resolution, further stressed the continued sovereignty of the states post-ratification: “The several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution], being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument is the rightful remedy” [1]. This radical assertion posits that the states, as the creators of the compact, retain the ultimate authority to determine if the federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds, with nullification as a legitimate recourse.

Preserving the Contract: The Role of States and Article V

James Madison, often referred to as the “Father of the Constitution,” echoed the contractual nature of the union during the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He explained that “clearly, according to the expositors of the law of nations, that a breach of any one article by any one party leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention to be dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair their breach” [4]. This view implies that if one party to the contract (the federal government) violates its terms, the other parties (the states) have the right to either dissolve the agreement or compel compliance.

Madison reiterated this principle in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, which, like the Kentucky Resolution, sought to nullify federal acts. He declared that the Virginia Assembly “doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact, as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact” [5]. This underscores the strict adherence to enumerated powers within the Constitution as interpreted by the states.

Madison, despite being a Federalist who supported a stronger union, still recognized the states’ right to resist federal overreach. He believed that the states, as the creators of the federal government, had a duty to preserve the union by ensuring the federal government operated within the confines of the Constitution [6].

The Unamendable Clause and the 17th Amendment

Article V of the Constitution outlines the amendment process, but it also contains a crucial provision that protects the voice of the states: “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate” [2]. This clause, often referred to as an “unamendable clause” by the Founders, ensured that states could not have their equal representation in the Senate removed without their explicit permission. This was a critical safeguard against larger states dominating smaller ones, reflecting the principle of state sovereignty within the federal structure [7].

The Electoral College, similarly, was designed to ensure that the President is chosen by the states, rather than solely by popular vote, which would concentrate power in heavily populated areas [8]. This mechanism prevents a few large cities or states from unilaterally deciding the outcome of presidential elections, further highlighting the Founders’ intent to balance popular will with state representation.

However, the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913 altered the original design by mandating the direct election of senators by the people, effectively removing the state legislatures’ role in selecting senators [9]. This amendment raises a significant constitutional question: if Article V stipulates that no state can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, is the 17th Amendment, which fundamentally changed the nature of state representation in the Senate, constitutionally valid if not every state explicitly consented to this change? From the perspective of the compact theory and the “unamendable clause,” the 17th Amendment could be seen as a violation of the original contract.

Nullification and Resistance: Applying Federalist No. 46

The concept of nullification, as articulated by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution, suggests that states can declare federal laws unconstitutional and thus refuse to enforce them. This idea aligns with the agency analogy: if a client (the states) hires a contractor (the federal government) to perform specific tasks, and the contractor deviates from the agreed-upon terms, the client is not obligated to pay for or accept the unauthorized work [10].

James Madison, in Federalist No. 46, explored the means by which states could resist federal overreach. He argued that “the means of opposition to the federal government going beyond its bounds are powerful and at hand” [11]. Madison listed several forms of resistance: “the disquietude of the people, their repugnance, and perhaps refusal to cooperate with the officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the state, the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions would oppose in any state difficulties not to be despised” [11].

Breaking down Madison’s terms:

Disquietude of the people: According to Samuel Johnson’s dictionary, a common reference during the Founding era, “disquietude” meant “uneasiness, anxiety, disturbance, wanted tranquility” [12]. This suggests a persistent, active agitation and lack of peace until the federal government rectifies its unconstitutional actions. Historical examples from the pre-Revolutionary period illustrate this: colonists engaged in acts like tarring and feathering tax collectors, forcing judges from their seats, and ransacking officials’ homes to disrupt the enforcement of British tyranny [13]. These actions, though considered extreme by modern standards, were seen by the Founders as necessary means to compel government compliance with the people’s will.
Repugnance of the people: In the context of Federalist No. 46, “repugnance” meant disobedience or resistance, not merely disgust [12]. This implies a refusal to comply with unconstitutional federal mandates. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions are prime examples of this “repugnance” in action, as states explicitly declared their intent not to obey federal laws they deemed unlawful [1, 5].
Refusal to cooperate with the officers of the Union: Madison suggested actively withholding cooperation from federal agents when they are enforcing unconstitutional edicts. This could manifest in various ways, such as refusing to assist IRS agents in collecting unconstitutional taxes, OSHA agents enforcing overreaching regulations, or even local police if they are acting as agents of illegal federal mandates. The principle here is that citizens are not obligated to aid in the enforcement of laws that violate the fundamental compact.

Conclusion

The understanding of the Constitution as a compact among sovereign states, as espoused by Jefferson and Madison, provides a framework for analyzing the limits of federal power and the rights of states to resist overreach. The “unamendable clause” in Article V and the historical context of resistance highlight the Founders’ intent to protect state sovereignty. When the federal government acts outside its enumerated powers, the states, as parties to the original contract, are presented with the dilemma of either nullifying the unconstitutional act or compelling adherence to the original agreement. This historical and philosophical perspective challenges conventional interpretations of federal supremacy and underscores the ongoing tension between centralized authority and state autonomy in the American constitutional system.

Sources

[1] Jefferson, Thomas. “Kentucky Resolution of 1798.”

[2] U.S. Constitution, Article V and Article VII.

[3] U.S. Constitution, Amendment X.

[4] Madison, James. Statement at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788. (Note: Specific quote may require more precise source citation, such as The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.)

[5] Madison, James. “Virginia Resolution of 1798.”

[6] Madison, James. The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

[7] Farrand, Max. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. (Discussions surrounding Article V and the “unamendable clause”).

[8] Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist Papers, No. 68.

[9] U.S. Constitution, Amendment XVII.

[10] Legal principle of contract law, specifically agency.

[11] Madison, James. The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

[12] Johnson, Samuel. A Dictionary of the English Language. (Original editions, commonly used in the 18th century).

[13] Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776.

The post Constitutional Crisis: Is The Constitution Still In Effect? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

What Does Article 5 Really Mean For Us?

Rod Klingler — Mon, 02 Jun 2025 03:00:23 +0000

Ben McClintock was a keynote speaker at the 2025 Constitution Party Convention in Orem, Utah. His topic was the power of states and individuals to take a stand against unconstitutional federal overreach. Due to video equipment failure at the actual event, this speech was re-recorded at another location afterwards. Get the book the powers that shouldn’t be are afraid for you to read at https://treeoflibertysociety.com/invasionbook/.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

When we talk about the Constitution, sometimes we forget about the basics, the fundamentals, the natural law, and then also what created the Constitution.

The fact that it’s not just this thing that existed and then created all these sub-bodies, but actually that it was 13 independent nations that formed a union.

And what that really means.

And so what we have to understand about the Constitution is that it’s a contract between these independent nations.

And the Founding Fathers talked about the fact that this is a contract.

We have here Thomas Jefferson, where he talks about that.

This isn’t the Kentucky Resolution.

So the state of Kentucky was saying that an act of the federal government was illegal.

And so Thomas Jefferson being one of the authors of that said that the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government.

But by a compact under the style and title of a constitution for the United States and of amendments there too, they constituted a general government for special purposes.

So it’s a compact.

What does that mean a compact?

Let’s go into Article 7 of the Constitution.

The compact is a formal agreement or contract.

So we have entered into by the states a contract to have specific limited duties performed.

And so in Article 7 of the Constitution we learn more about the application of that contract.

It says the ratification of the conventions of the nine states shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

So this Constitution is between those states.

They needed to have a certain amount of states saying we’re going to agree to this contract before it was binding upon those that did enter into it and then it was between those states.

It wasn’t between this all-powerful body and these sub -bodies that were subject to the bigger body, but it was another body that was created by these, and it was something between the states specifically.

And then we go to the next article in the Constitution.

We have the 10th Amendment, where it explains this concept of a compact even more in the contract, says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.

So once again saying that this contract is a limited contract whether we have given limited powers to this new body that we have created and that if we haven’t given that body powers then that body doesn’t have that power specifically and then that those powers are then of course reserved by the creators the states and or the people themselves.

So again, the contract and the Kentucky Resolution, Thomas Jefferson says, “The several states who formed that instrument “mean the Constitution, being sovereign and independent.”

So even at this point, we formed the Constitution and we have created this compact, this contract, and we were still considered sovereign and independent nations.

Have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction and that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument is the rightful remedy.

So he’s saying that, no, it’s not the judges, it’s not the Supreme Court that decides when the Constitution is violated, it is the states, it’s the creators of the compact, of the contract that are the ones that are the final arbiters of when something is constitutional or when it goes beyond those bounds.

And we’re gonna get into a little bit some more modern application of that, and so that it kind of helps us to really quantify it and make it make more sense when we get to that.

But let’s go to the next part of the, this is in the ratifying convention.

The father of the Constitution, James Madison, explained this contract nature saying that clearly, according to the expositors of the law of nations, that a breach of any one article by any one party leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention to be dissolved, unless they choose rather to compel the delinquent party to repair their breach.

So when you have a contract between two parties and one of the parties violates that contract, you have one of two options.

You have either saying, “Okay, that contract’s null and void, we’re not going by it anymore, we’re separating our ways,” or you say I’m going to force you to be a party to the contract. I’m going to force you to obey the contract that we both agreed to go by.

Those are our two options.

We either separate ourselves or we enforce the document.

There’s no other option when you have a party violating the contract.

And then again is in the Virginia resolution that came out about the same time as the Kentucky resolution, nullifying an act of the federal government.

James Madison said that this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact, as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact.

So in layman’s terms, that it is clear there is nothing that the federal government has the power to do that isn’t specifically listed as a power to do and that it is a
plain sense, the intention of the contract is no further valid than when they obey the limited jurisdiction that is given within that document.

And what’s really important to understand about James Madison is he was what’s called a federalist.

He was in support of the union.

It wasn’t like he was Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson was considered a anti-Federalist where he thought that the Constitution gave this new general government too much power.

So you can imagine somebody that was against the Constitution to begin with would say, “Oh, I’m gonna find a reason why it’s no longer valid.”

No, we have James Madison, the father of the Constitution, saying, “When you go beyond these bounds, “you are violating the contract that we entered into.”

And so they actually said in the Virginia Resolution, resolution was their duty to preserve the union was to enforce the contract by disobeying actions that
violated the Constitution and so it was their effort to be able to preserve the union that they said no we’re not going to obey the federal government so now we
have the law of agency and what that means in contract so we have this gentleman here and we have a contractor we have a homeowner and we have a home builder or a landowner and a home builder.

And they get together and they enter into a contract.

They agree together that I’m going to give you a certain amount of money and you’re going to build this house the way I’ve asked you to build it.

And so they agree to it.

They enter a contract.

And if the builder does what he’s told, exactly how he’s told, then he’s due the money that was agreed to in advance.

But let’s say the contractor says, you know what, this family could really use a pool. You know, they’ve got kids before their general welfare of their family.

So I’m going to add a pool to this.

And of course, because I spent the money, I spent the time for the equipment and the materials, he owes me to build this pool. But that’s a violation of the contract.

Because what was he given the authority to do? Only to build the house, nothing more.

And so any reasonable judge that this was brought to, if The contractor goes together, goes to court and says you owe me money for the pool.

The judge is going to say no, that contract was null and void when you built the pool, when you were not authorized to build the pool.

And so any, I think reasonable person would say this makes sense.

All of a sudden when we apply this to the Constitution, people think that that’s radical.

You know, that might be extreme.

But that’s exactly what it is.

It’s a contract between these parties and they have agreed to do certain things and if they do those certain things, the parties involved have agreed to go along with it, but as soon as they go beyond, as soon as they build that pool, no longer obligated to obey any of the actions, any of the laws that were passed by the body that was only authorized to do certain things.

So the thing to do is to fire the contractor.

So article five, talking about preserving the contract, because who created the contract again?

It was the states they came together and they said we agree to delegate these certain things so they’ve come together so article five of the Constitution is what was added to the contract to allow the states to be able to preserve their power and so as we go through it’s preserving their voice we look at what it says so
protecting the voice of the states it says that no state without its consent shall it be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

So the state, as a political body, cannot, without its permission, have its suffrage.

If you remember the suffrage for women, right? So suffrage means votes.

So the state government’s vote cannot be taken from it without its consent, meaning without its permission.

So why did they do that?

They called it the unamendable laws because they couldn’t have their vote taken away without their consent.

You couldn’t have 99 out of 100 say that you don’t get your vote anymore.

They had to have everybody say yes, you can take away my vote, okay, so it was unamendable.

So we look at the Electoral College, just kind of the same principle behind giving the states their vote is the same concept behind the Electoral College, why we don’t actually pick a president according to the the popular vote.

You can just imagine what that would look like as we have these major population areas of California, of New York, and what that means.

You have the California having almost 40 million people in it and you have New York having about 20 million people in it and then you have states like Alaska and South Dakota having less than a million people in each of those states and what kind of result that that has what that would have if it was simply done by the population if we chose president by population you would have one or you know three or four cities basically picking the president and the rest of the country would be out of it and so they gave us the Electoral College to make sure that the president was chosen by the states as opposed to one or two major cities across the Union.

And so we look at article five again that protects the voice of the states and we look at this, you know.

The city of Los Angeles with all by itself.

We have it having about 12 million people versus the entire state of Utah only having about four million.

So just the city of Los Angeles would outvote us, you know, according to the presidency What is that three times over and so the just the influence that we would lose, that all of the smaller states would lose, was in the founding fathers wanted to prevent.

And so as another check besides the electoral college, we have article five of the constitution, not having their votes taken away from them.

And so here, and we look at the state of Utah and the counties within our state, where if the state had its vote taken away from it, and it was given to the people, like they choose the congressman, You have basically Utah County and Salt Lake County having all of the voice in who the senator is for the state of Utah.

And so the founding fathers recognized that just like that’s a problem for the entire union, a state would have its voice taken away if it was chosen by population just as much as if the president was chosen by population.

And so they in the article 5 of the Constitution made sure that the states got to keep their vote, and it was the state legislators that picked the senator for the U .S. Senate.

And so they called it the Unamendable Clause.

We have in the convention of 1887, it says it was feared that three -fourths of the states might be brought to do things fatal to particular states, as abolishing them altogether or depriving them of their equality in the Senate.

To protect this, it was added that no state be deprived of its equality in the Senate.

So no state was to have its vote taken away from them.

In the convention they also said that, in an order that no consolidation should take place, it is provided that no state shall by any amendment or alteration be ever deprived of an equal suffrage in the Senate without its own consent.

So there’s no, you can’t have an amendment passed unless it was Every single state said, “Yes, I agree to this.”

It’s not like any other amendment where you just had three -fourths of the states say that they agreed to it.

Had to be every single state agree to have its vote taken away from it.

And so we have the 17th Amendment, though.

That was passed in 1913, and it says, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state elected by the people thereof.”

So it took away the vote of the states.

It said, “Now we’re going to give it to the people, the population centers of that state.”

an opinion on it.

So if a state has to have its consent to have its vote taken away from it, is the 17th Amendment valid according to Article 5 of the Constitution?

No, absolutely not, because they did not give their assent to have their voice taken away from them.

And so we have the state of Utah, in fact, went a step further and not only didn’t give its permission, but the state of Utah said, “No, you can’t have our vote.”

And so according to Article 5 of the Constitution, the 17th Amendment is a violation of the Constitution, which I think sounds weird to a lot of people to say that the Constitution violates the Constitution, but when you’re going to change it, you have to follow the rules of the original contract, otherwise the contract is now null and void.

So you have two options, right?

We have one option is to cancel the contract as it’s been violated or you enforce it as the contract has been violated.

And what needs to be understood is that it was not us that violated the contract.

It was the the general government that violated the contract by forcing a violation of it.

So what can a state do now that it’s been supposedly passed?

Do we do we just have to capitulate and go along with it?

You know, right?

No.

You don’t have to just go along with it.

That’s what the founding fathers said with the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions and other examples of nullification.

You just say, “No, we’re not going to go along with it. It’s not a violation of the contract, and so it’s null and void, and we’re just not going to
do it.”

But there are other options that you don’t have to leave the union, that you can actually start to enforce the Constitution, and that is another option that
can be done.

We’ll get into that.

So what a state can do, you have James Madison in Federalist 46.

What he said, this is an argument you had, Patrick was also what was considered an anti -Federalist, saying we were giving too much power to the general government.

And you had James Madison, the Federalist Papers, defending the Constitution, saying, no, we would never, we would have to be insane.

He says, what degree of madness would we have to have come to to allow the general government to be so powerful that it takes away the state’s rights?

And so he says, so in Federalist 46, he goes through when he lists the things that can be done for an individual state to withstand the unconstitutional actions of the federal government.

He says that the means of opposition to the federal government going beyond its bounds are powerful and at hand.

So he’s like, it shouldn’t be a difficult thing.

These tools that we have, they are powerful tools and they’re right next to us.

We can grab them any time we want to. He says the disquietude of the people, their repugnance, and perhaps refusal to cooperate with the officers of the Union,
the frowns of the executive magistrate, the magistracy of the state, the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions would oppose in any state difficulties not to be despised.

A correspondence would be opened, Plans of resistance would be concerted.

In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other.

The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part.

So he’s going back to the war for independence that we just went through and saying, we had a much bigger organization coming against us.

And then he’s saying now that no, we have a much bigger thing.

He is what would be the contest in the case we are supposing?

Who would be the parties?

A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves.

So he’s saying it would be the exact opposite.

So it’d be much easier because we’d have more people opposing a smaller group of people.

And so it would be much easier for us to oppose the government if they went beyond its bounds in the Constitution in this scenario.

So I wanna break this down also into more modern tongues.

We can, you know, disquietude is not really a word that’s used very often today, at least in the circles I run around with, or, you know, repugnance, I think that the meaning of that has changed a little bit as well.

So I wanna just talk about those meanings and that’ll help us to understand what it is our duty is or what are the things that we can do when the government goes beyond its contract.

So talking about disquietude, oh I’m sorry, with this just kind of breaking down what it is that James Madison said in Federalist 46, he says, “The disquietude of the people, the people’s repugnance, and the refusal to cooperate with the officers of the union.”

So these are the tools that we have at hand to be able to resist when the contract is being violated.

So now we look at the definitions of these words, disquietude.

We go to the dictionary of the time, Samuel Johnson’s dictionary, that was what the founding fathers would have used, and it says that it’s uneasy, uneasiness, anxiety, disturbance, wanted tranquility, so essentially no peace until the tyrants retreat.

So that’s what we’re supposed to do, according to James Madison, is that we are to have no peace.

We are to be full of disturbances and wanted tranquility until they back off, so that’s what disquietude We are going to be constantly going after them.

Somebody talks about one topic, and we just bring it right back.

We say, no, we’re talking about the violation of the contract. And then something else comes up again.

We’re like, no, we’re talking about the violation of the contract.

How about repugnance?

Today, the word means, in most people’s minds, at least in my mind, it’s ugly, it’s gross.

But that’s not what he meant there in the context of ’46. In federalist ’46, Disquietude means something completely different, but I am getting ahead of myself again, and I’m gonna get some more background on how the Founding Fathers were full of disquietude, how they were full of disturbances leading up to the War for Independence.

We have a 10 -year period, 1766 to 1776, there were more than 70 recorded incidents of tarring and feathering by colonists against government officials, just right there.

Today, can you imagine the way that our population is today?

If a single politician was tartan feathered by the populace, what would the response be, right?

The founding fathers were of a different breed than we are today.

They went, they’d 70 in 10 years.

In Berkshire, colonists forced justices of the court from their seats, shut up the courthouse and forced the justices from the city.

So they just ran everybody out of town that was going to be forcing the tyrannical acts of the crown.

Another thing that they did, they said outside of Boston, colonists went to the home of another judge and fired shots into his house, forcing him out of the city.

So again, you can just imagine what that would be like today because of the way that our culture is, that this would be seen as unacceptable.

But the founding fathers said, no, this is how we behave to be able to get government back under control.

This is something that most people in America believe that they support the Founding Fathers.

They love what the colonists did to be able to gather independence.

But when we say let’s be like them, they’re like, wait, hold on a second, that’s a little extreme to be like the Founding Fathers as much as we like to respect them.

But this is what they said was the solution to an out of control government.

Again, in 1774, the Attorney General’s House had windows broken and other damage forcing him to flee the city to Cambridge, Massachusetts, Lieutenant Governor had his house ransacked by colonists and was forced to resign and flee to Boston for safety. 5 ,000 colonists went to Worcester and compelled the judges, the sheriff, and other judicial officials to promise not to hold courts enforcing the acts of parliament.

So again, they were full of disquietude.

They did not allow the government to enforce its tyrannical edicts.

They said, “No, we’re not going to do it, and if you’re gonna be a part of that, we’re gonna drive you out of town.”

So, it’s our godly duty to be full of disquieting. The scriptures talk about that in Proverbs.

We’re to open in thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.

Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

And then in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 3, the Lord says, “Also, it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation and all the pure in heart
that we should waste and wear out our lives and bring into light all the hidden things of darkness wherein we know them.”

So we’re told to be full of disquietedness.

We’re supposed to waste and wear out our lives in exposing what’s going on. Lord says that we’re wearing out our life.

Like when we wear out something, it’s something that is used up is it’s not hidden away, something that is regularly used.

And so we are told to be full of disquietude to expose the evil that is going on and so that good may prevail.

So go to repugnance, what we think today and what it was back then. Repugnance was just disobedient. Wasn’t something that was stinky or ugly.

If you were repugnant, it meant that you were going to resist what was going on.

You just don’t do it.

And that’s what the founding fathers said under the Kentucky resolutions and in the Virginia resolutions and other examples of when the federal government violated the contract they said we’re not going to do it we’re not going to obey and that’s our job to preserve the union preserve the contract was to not obey anything that was outside of the contract so we’re supposed to be disquietful of disquietude and repugnance and so we do that through passing out literature or having cottage meetings in our home where people present something.

We pass out books to help people understand what’s going on.

We go to a meeting, a public meeting of a public official, and we get in their face and we say, you’re violating the contract.

You’re breaking the law. You need to be called out on it specifically, also getting together with those that we know and just meeting with them one -on -one and sharing with them the facts of liberty, of what God has asked us to do, and what is being violated in those things and so that we can bring more people to an understanding of their duty to be full of disquietude and repugnant.

So an example that he said, he says, “We need to refuse to cooperate with the officers.”

Here’s some examples of officers, right?

We have IRS agents, you have OSHA agents, you have ATF agents, and even local police would be considered the officers of the government because, A, of course, they are enforcing the tyranny and they are funded by the federal government.

And so, they are considered officers of the federal government that you would not cooperate with when they are sent to enforce these illegal edicts that violate the contract.

So I want to be more general, right? Just like when we say that we shouldn’t obey things that violate the contract, doesn’t mean we can just go down I -15 and do a bunch of donuts.

We don’t just break the law just because the government said you should do it, right?

There’s wisdom in things that you do.

And so we don’t, just because a government agent wants to ask for your help in finding out what’s going on with something, then we have to say, “Okay, this is reasonable.”

If somebody has actually murdered someone, then we should help catch the murder because murder is wrong.

But we see these agencies, they are illegal, they shouldn’t exist in the first place, and so we don’t cooperate with an agent of an agency that is illegal in the first place, but let’s give some specific examples of what I mean of not cooperating, refusing to cooperating with the officers.

We have here, I don’t know if you guys remember, this was back in 2003, here in Utah, you had a 12 -year -old that was diagnosed with cancer, and his parents didn’t wanna give him chemotherapy treatment, but that was illegal in the state of Utah.

You are compelled to treat your minor with what the state says you must treat them with for that disease, and they didn’t want to do that, and so they fled the state.

They left to go to Idaho so that they could get the treatment that they wanted for their child instead of the one that the state wanted.

So if somebody came to me, I knew this family, and they wanted my help in finding them, I absolutely would refuse to cooperate with that officer.

Sometimes you see these Amber Alerts that come on your phone.

And we’ll see them pop up where that’s somebody where it’s just a specific example just happened last year where a mother and a daughter, which the grandma and then the daughter were gotten a fight.

The daughter left with her baby and the mom was scared and so called the police and the police issued an Amber Alert threatening to take away the child and put the mom in jail simply because of an argument.

Well, most of these cases that we see of these Amber Alerts are simply the government attempting to kidnap somebody’s child.

And so that’s an example of where I would refuse to cooperate with the officers.

Here’s another example that we see every once in a while.

We have FBI offering $25 ,000 rewards for information in a series of attacks against abortion clinics.

So just to translate, reproductive health service facilities means Baby Murder Clinics.

So am I going to help them out to get the $25 ,000 so that they can, you know, so what they’re saying is somebody did something to help protect babies from being tortured and murdered.

And now they want me to help them find that person and put them in jail.

I’m not going to do that.

I am not gonna cooperate with the officers of the government to put somebody in jail that did whatever they could to stop a baby from being tortured and murdered.

And so we see some examples and there’s probably an endless list of examples where we would say it’s not right to help out these officers and that we would say it’s morally reprehensible to help them out.

So just wanted to give those examples of what James Madison talked about in Federalist 46 when he talked about not cooperating with the officers.

When they’re violating the natural rights, when they’re violating the Constitution, it is our job to help enforce the Constitution by not cooperating with these officers.

So we are to be doers of the word, right, as the Apostle James says, not hearers, because when we only hear something and don’t do something, we are deceiving ourselves.

We are being slothful servants when we learn something and don’t apply it.

And so these are examples of things that we can do to apply the things that we’ve learned. We can be disquieted and repugnant, right?

We need to read and apply what we’ve learned, hold cottage meetings where you or a representative from the Tree of Liberty Society presents on a targeted message.

We can distribute books and pass along materials directing others to the truth.

We can attend meetings to expose publicly crimes committed by government officials or bring yourself and others to meetings others are organizing.

We can write articles or make videos or help produce videos on topics of liberty or exposing evil.

And we can join with others in the Tree of Liberty Society to increase the volume of our repugnance, the volume of our saying no, the volume of our being full of
disquietude.

Encourage those viewing this to join with us in the Tree of Liberty Society to do what the founding father said, to enforce the contract, to make sure that we are being full of disquietude and that we are being repugnant to the illegal and criminal acts of those that wish to rule over us and that we can be the worst global citizen that we can be.

Thank you.

The post What Does Article 5 Really Mean For Us? appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

Why You MUST NOT COMPLY With REAL ID

Rod Klingler — Sun, 25 May 2025 03:00:20 +0000

But, but, but… Uncle Sam always has your best intentions at heart, right? Right?!? NO! They are a bunch of globalists who are selling us out to the New World Order. YOU MUST NOT COMPLY!

This is an excerpt from The Silent INVASION of YOUR Town. View Ben’s full interview on the Dangerous Info podcast here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/the-silent-invasion-of-your-town/

Get the book the powers that shouldn’t be are afraid for you to read at https://treeoflibertysociety.com/invasionbook/.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors

TRANSCRIPT

That’s the scenario that I’m looking at now

Somebody’s going to show up in the airport next month if this holds

They’re not going to have the star

Their family’s going to be able to get on the plane if they have the star

What does a person do in that moment

It’s a soft one

They’re going to give you a warning and say we’re not going to allow you to come on again

So they’re like doing this one last hey we’re going to scare you into doing it if you don’t already have it

And so there still is that little cushion you’re going to have but it’s they’re really ramping up the pressure to get everybody to comply

Wow I wonder what how how this is going to come to head here I guess everybody’s just going to lay down and say okay that’s it

That’s what we’re doing now

I don’t know

That decides how it goes to a head is if do we resist or do we comply

If we comply then it’s going to go away and and we’re going to say oh it wasn’t that bad

And I’ll just go about my life as tyranny gets to increase

But if we don’t then they’re going to push it back again

They’re going to say oh we just don’t have enough compliance yet

And so we’re going to have to push it back

And you know by 2027 then we’ll then we’ll really do it this time

And so it really is important that we push back and don’t comply

The post Why You MUST NOT COMPLY With REAL ID appeared first on Tree of Liberty Society.

What They Aren’t Telling You About REAL ID!

Rod Klingler — Sat, 24 May 2025 03:00:47 +0000

You vill show your papers, or you vill pay ze consequences! How YOU Became REAL ID Compliant Without Even Knowing It?!? Find out!

This is an excerpt from The Silent INVASION of YOUR Town. View Ben’s full interview on the Dangerous Info podcast here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/the-silent-invasion-of-your-town/

Get the book the powers that shouldn’t be are afraid for you to read at https://treeoflibertysociety.com/invasionbook/.

Help support ad-free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

Thank you to our sponsors